Chris Matthews claims White House leaned on MSNBC

October 5, 2007

Just two weeks ago, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric said her former employer, NBC, discouraged her from challenging the Bush administration. “I think there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations,” she said.

Yesterday, Hardball host Chris Matthews took this one step further, telling a DC audience that the Bush administration has tried to lean on his network and influence broadcast journalism. (thanks to RK and DOK for the tip)

After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials — especially those from Vice President Cheney’s office — called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. “They will not silence me!” Matthews declared.

This is a provocative thing to say, isn’t it? White House officials tried to shape MSNBC news broadcasts? Will Bunch raised the questions that Matthews might be so generous as to consider: “What were these attempts by Dick Cheney and other to muzzle him — and more importantly, did they work? Name names, if you’re going to be so brave. You say they won’t silence you? Great! We’re listening.”

But Matthews was apparently just warming up.

“They’ve finally been caught in their criminality,” Matthews continued, although he did not specify the exact criminal behavior to which he referred. He then drew an obvious Bush-Nixon parallel by saying, “Spiro Agnew was not an American hero.”

That’s great, but is Matthews telling viewers about Bush’s “criminality,” or just DC insiders fortunate enough to get invited to a swanky party?

Matthews left the throng of Washington A-listers with a parting shot at Cheney: “God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot.”

Again, that sure sounds like the kind of insight that might be helpful to share with a television audience.

On a side note: Matthews was overheard discussing his Tuesday appearance on “The Daily Show,” which featured a heated exchange with host Jon Stewart. According to one source, Matthews was steadfast in his belief that the debate left Stewart crestfallen, and Matthews victorious.

Um, I don’t think so.

Oh, so this is what a totalitarian dictatorship is like… Great non-journalism Tweety.

  • Mathews is one of the weirdest people I’ve ever listened to. He’s almost a bi-polar manic. But he is only one that has stated the obvious. How many have not said a word. Cheney has demonstrated his willingness to use blackmail and exposure to punish those who criticize him or his. He operates in secret to keep from being exposed for the criminal he is. His attorney’s are people like Addington so is there any doubt that he would threaten media outlets. Busting him for it is another matter as he has always operated under the air of “prove it” as he breaks the law…knowing it doesn’t mean a thing to this crook…prove it.

  • The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

    Tell that to GQ.

    To me, this just sounds like “I’ve not been as critical of the Bush Administration as I should have been, but I will come down hard on Clinton or any Democrat.”

    I’m sure the critical nature of the media will end about the same time the next Republican President is elected.

  • perhaps general electric’s media outlets were concerned about this:

    Reuters July 23, 2005
    With Bush’s help, GE courts Indian PM, nuke sector
    In-Depth Coverage

    By Adam Entous

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Just over an hour after the White House’s surprise pledge to help India develop its civilian nuclear power sector, the head of General Electric, the American company that could benefit most from the policy change, sat down for a celebratory dinner.

    The host was President George W. Bush; a few feet away was India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and his top aides. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, a contributor to Bush’s presidential campaigns, had a coveted seat at the president’s table.

    Bush’s announcement on nuclear trade with India — followed by a formal dinner in the State dining room — was not just a victory for Singh. For GE, the only U.S.-owned company still in the nuclear business, it marked a possible turning point in a years-long push to re-enter the Indian nuclear power market, which it was forced to leave in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test.

    “In the short term, it’s really business as usual. … But if things unfold the way it looks they may, then clearly it is a significant opportunity for us,” said Peter Wells, general manager of marketing for GE Energy’s nuclear business.

    While the policy change may benefit GE and other companies in the long term, critics contend Bush’s move closer to accepting the world’s largest democracy as a nuclear weapons state could weaken decades-old prohibitions against atomic arms.

    “This administration’s rogue, shoot-from-the-hip move to launch nuclear cooperation with India puts the interests of industry ahead of our national security,” said Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, an arms control advocate.

    GE was not mentioned in the joint statement issued by Bush and Singh, but Bush specifically pledged “expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur.”

  • That’s great.

    He’s simply preparing for the media party that will occur when a Dem is elected president in 08–and especially if it’s Hillary. They’ll party like it’s 1994 because it’s okay to bash a Dem president, even after they’re gone.

    Just ask Matthews, who can’t resist taking a jab at Bill Clinton everytime he opens his spittle slot.

  • Jr, they should participate – heck, its the best possible place – because Cheney has already greased the skids and taken all necessary steps to ensure they are treated well!

  • Wouldn’t any competent news organization, upon getting a threatening call from the VP,
    1) ask for it in writing
    2) whether they got it in writing or not, read the threat in its entirety on the air (or print it as appropriate)?

    What is wrong with these people (he asks rhetorically)?

  • i agree that he is very late realizing what we have known since 2002, but at least he is catching on a bit…or is he just currying favor with the new power people-US?

  • So is it safe to say Cheney watches news programs other then Fox ??

    I think most of us already knew something has been going on with the media, but it’s nice to have our suspicions confirmed. I am tired of acting like a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut job, it’s nice to see the hat is necessary and I am not stark raving mad.

    I wonder what Olberman has to say about this.

  • And tell me why should the GOP candidates partcipate in a debate with him?

    Wait, what did he say that would make him unacceptable to GOP candidates? He said that he wouldn’t be silenced by the White House(as if that is true). He didn’t say anything about the GOP or Republicans in general. He was only specifically talking about the current Administration. Do moderates normally want newspeople kowtowing to the President?

  • Stewart was crestfallen? Are you kidding me? And Matthews didn’t replay that part at least a few times? I’m sure he could have worked the interview into his conversation with his wife yesterday if he weren’t so humiliated by the Macchiavelli comparison.

  • Regarding the spirit of CB’s post:

    Again, that sure sounds like the kind of insight that might be helpful to share with a television audience.

    Indeed.
    The bird needs to sing.

    I taut I taw a puddy tat.

    Doen’t get it done.

  • Rambuncle, the question was asked in the article by an attendee…

    “I find it hard to believe that Republican candidates will feel as if they’re being given a fair shot at Tuesday’s debate given the partisan pot-shots lobbed by Matthews this evening,” said one attendee.

  • CB, you wouldn’t be suggesting now, would you, that Matthew’s D.C. remarks are his attempt to dust himself off after the Stewart interview?

  • I’m so happy to see Matthews has begun to grow a spine. If only some of that growth would now occur north of the brainstem.

  • Great catch Linda (#4) – that is exactly what is going on. One can also read about Sumner Redstone – head of Viacom – saying why he was so willing to get rid of Dan Rather before the 2004 election: that Republicans are better for Viacom with their deregulation and non-enforcement of existing regulations, than Democrats would be. General Electric is Viacom on steroids when it comes to that kind of attitude.

    They’re all the Corporate News Network. Which is why you can get more accurate news than the MSM puts out reading back issues of Pravda or the People’s Daily.

    • Comments are closed.